|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Xerxes
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Location: Down a certain (rabbit) hole, apparently
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Sorry to jump in like this at the tail end of this long debate, but maybe I can add information that will help. At one point in the thread, there was debate whether it was just to take out Pakistani targets on sovereign soil without Pakistan's approval or knowledge, and also whether it was morally just of the US to do so even with the massive collateral deaths.
The US has no choice on this method of taking out targets if killing such targets is their goal; by US law, the government cannot legally assassinate targets. This does not mean that the US through CIA has never assassinated because they have, but the Bush administration, for logical reasoning to justify their invasion of Iraq, wants the deaths of Al Qaeda heads to be public. In order for the Bush administration to make such deaths to be public and take credit for the kills, they cannot assassinate, as they have done in the past, and maybe even do so now (assassination and whether CIA, and US in general, does this is not my point here, and I think others can refer us to the relevant articles that support this and other points).
I am responding to that point in this thread (which by now has already gone away from this previous focus at an impasse):
| Gopher wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The death toll from Friday's strike included five children, five women and eight men. |
That's a quote from CNN. Just so we're clear on what we're willing to do to get at Al Qaeda. |
I agree with you that these childrens' deaths are tragic and outrageous.
But you don't believe that that the U.S. intentionally targeted children, do you? Did you see the film Peacemaker, I think it was called? The one with the terrorist who had brought a nuclear device into NYC and where Clooney's snipers had a shot at the guy but there were children between them, and Clooney said "understood...take the shot"? It was probably a very similar situation. No one likes it. We had intel that our man was there. And we took the shot. These people must be stopped before they perpetrate more 9/11s or other attacks like what we've seen in Spain and Britain.
In any case, for that reason, Pakistanis should not be inviting terrorists into their homes, terrorists who are attempting to destroy the United States and harm others. They are recklessly placing their own children in harm's way. |
I don't read this news source, the Carnegie Council of Ethics and International Affairs, regularly  , but I just did a google search to find a reference to my claim that US does not assassinate. That reference is here at this link. And I quote a short excerpt here:
| Moral Dilemmas of U.S. Policy Toward Iraq wrote: |
| What does this mean for U.S. policy toward Iraq? U.S. law prohibits assassination, and it is unlikely that any presidential administration would seek to have such a rule overturned. At the same time, U.S. strategic bombing often appears to be a cover for attempted assassination. Indeed, in the case of the 1986 bombing of Libya, many believe that the United States targeted the Libyan leader himself, a belief that is sustained by the fact that Moammar Qaddafi��s home was bombed and one of his children killed. In its bombing raids on Iraq, the United States has also actively sought out targets where Saddam Hussein may be located. |
That was Regan that ordered those strikes by the way (He doesn't take sheit from anybody too easily either).
I must admit that I didn't read the whole thread (it is very long) and I sped through just the salients when I kept seeing this thread being the only one being followed up on. I don't want any unpleasant flaming coming my way, and this post is offered with all due respect. I just thought that this would help you to understand why the Bush administration would go to such lengths with such methods for their targets despite collateral deaths. The technology that is being developed for laser guided missiles is pretty much an assassin��s trained target with merely the firepower coming from a jet flying overhead. The demand for such technology is very specifically a US demand, by far. This is the reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: |
| This does not mean that the US through CIA has never assassinated because they have...they cannot assassinate, as they have done in the past, and maybe even do so now (assassination and whether CIA, and US in general, does this is not my point here... |
You should better inform yourself on this issue. Start with the Church Committee's staff report Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders. You can read it online.
CIA produced lists of local Communists and distributed these lists to anticommunist govts in Guatemala and Indonesia, whereupon these people were killed.
CIA initiated assassination plots against Lumumba and Castro. Neither of them succeeded.
CIA assisted but then tried to back away from a group of Dominican dissidents who plotted and carried out Trujillo's assassination. They were going to assassinate the general with or without U.S. backing, and, in the end, they did it without.
CIA considered starting up a general assassination capability, codenamed ZR/RIFLE, but did not follow through.
By the late 1960s, DCI Helms clarified that the Agency will not involve itself in assassinations again. In the early 1970s, DCI Colby restated this. After the Church Committee hearings, Carter issued an executive order making assassination illegal in the U.S.
When you say that CIA has assassinated people in the past, you overstate the historical record as well as the Agency's capabilities. Stick to the facts, state what CIA did, no more no less. And casual glosses and innuendo-like references such as "as they have done in the past" is much more "more" than "less," if you know what I mean.
And, crazy as it may seem, hitting a valid command target in a shooting war with a missile is not the same thing as putting poison in his food, whether or not the result is the same, notwithstanding. When I was in the Marine Corps we learned that we could not shoot at people with a .50 caliber machine gun, only machines and equipment. An instructor told us to aim for the canteens on enemy soldiers, and that was that. All's fair in love and war, you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerxes
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Location: Down a certain (rabbit) hole, apparently
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| When you say that CIA has assassinated people in the past, you overstate the historical record as well as the Agency's capabilities. Stick to the facts, state what CIA did, no more no less. And casual glosses and innuendo-like references such as "as they have done in the past" is much more "more" than "less," if you know what I mean. |
(bold added) Gopher, listen, I could look up assassination conspiracy theories online all day, and you could counter them with your professional experience. I do hope that you agree that the "facts" in whether CIA or any US organ assassinates foreign nationals and heads of state is very slim and uncorroborated. When I made my original post, I knew that this would be the hot button topic and one that could not be concluded one way or another because all "evidence" is sketchy and based on conspiracy theories. I am not one to enjoy such conjectural discussions. I did not mean to tread on your area of obvious expertise.
| Xerxes wrote: |
| (assassination and whether CIA, and US in general, does this is not my point here, and I think others can refer us to the relevant articles that support this and other points) |
That is why I wanted to avoid this particular "conspiracy" theory about assassinations. If you want to go ahead with it, be my guest. I will decline the invitation. I referenced your post merely because it was one among many, and I was not targeting your integrity in my post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
The conspriacy movement says what it does not because they are interested in the truth but because they want the US government destroyed.
Anyway anyone who is part that movement ought not be allowed a US visa.
|
Joo:
Yeah, I can see why you wouldn't want those foreign consporacy mongers getting into the US and spreadig their disinformation. Like for example, that limey David Icke, who says that the US government carried out the 9-11 attacks themselves and the world is run by lizards.
And if anyone doesn't believe me that David Icke is a fascist conspiracy mongering limey, check out his website, accessible to any American with an internet hookup.
http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/america/usa/092701d.html
Yes folks, that's David Icke.
24 hours a day.
7 days a week.
Free of charge.
Just like a zillion other internet conpiracy theorists.
Whom we MUST bar from entering the United States. |
Well alot of these guys are motivated by a desire to destroy the US.
& their active supporters ought not be allowed a US visa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
By the way look at Coles blog. When reponding to one of Bush's speeches Cole would not deny that Al Qaida fights for the Caliphate.
|
I'm a regular reader of the website. I don't recall him ever saying that Al Qaeda fights for the caliphate, but I'm sure he very well could've said that.
And I for one wouldn't deny that Al Qaeda's agenda is related to religious goals. The question I've been trying to address on this thread is the structural, not the ideological, nature of Al Qaeda. |
Actually he wouldn't deny it.
His response was something like -who knows what crazy thing they fight for? when responding point for point to speech by the president. Which was interesting cause on every other point he gave a definite answer on how Bush was wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| The question I've been trying to address on this thread is the structural...nature of Al Qaeda. |
I think that at the end of the day, we must admit that we really have no idea. And that is certainly a big part of the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's what I didn't like about the Cole excerpt- that one paragraph where he writes off al Qaeda as very small, used up, etc.
I was thinking that it didn't really seem to match reality, and how the hell did he know?
Has he got a cousin in NW Pakistan with an 'in' or something?
[note, I didn't go to the source and read it in context as Ontheotherhand suggested]
Here it is, this paragrapgh:
| Quote: |
Over four years later, there is no doubt. Al-Qaeda is a small terrorist network that has spawned a few copy-cats and wannabes. Its breakthrough was to recruit some high-powered engineers in Hamburg, which it immediately used up. Most al-Qaeda recruits are marginal people, people like Zacarias Moussawi and Richard Reid, who would be mere cranks if they hadn't been manipulated into trying something dangerous. Muhammad al-Amir (a.k.a Atta) and Ziad Jarrah were highly competent scientists, who could figure the kinetic energy of a jet plane loaded with fuel. There don't seem to be significant numbers of such people in the organization. They are left mostly with cranks, petty thieves, drug smugglers, bored bank tellers, shopkeepers, and so forth, persons who could pull off a bombing of trains in Madrid or London, but who could not for the life of them do a really big operation. |
He seems to not understand the structure of an organization needed to support these 'cranks' in their sleeper cells. It seems the typical "let's just write them off as crazy rather than try to understand them" underestimating that has so often occurred. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That's what I didn't like about the Cole excerpt- that one paragraph where he writes off al Qaeda as very small, used up, etc.
I was thinking that it didn't really seem to match reality, and how the hell did he know?
Has he got a cousin in NW Pakistan with an 'in' or something?
[note, I didn't go to the source and read it in context as Ontheotherhand suggested]
Here it is, this paragrapgh:
Quote:
Over four years later, there is no doubt. Al-Qaeda is a small terrorist network that has spawned a few copy-cats and wannabes. Its breakthrough was to recruit some high-powered engineers in Hamburg, which it immediately used up. Most al-Qaeda recruits are marginal people, people like Zacarias Moussawi and Richard Reid, who would be mere cranks if they hadn't been manipulated into trying something dangerous. Muhammad al-Amir (a.k.a Atta) and Ziad Jarrah were highly competent scientists, who could figure the kinetic energy of a jet plane loaded with fuel. There don't seem to be significant numbers of such people in the organization. They are left mostly with cranks, petty thieves, drug smugglers, bored bank tellers, shopkeepers, and so forth, persons who could pull off a bombing of trains in Madrid or London, but who could not for the life of them do a really big operation.
He seems to not understand the structure of an organization needed to support these 'cranks' in their sleeper cells. It seems the typical "let's just write them off as crazy rather than try to understand them" underestimating that has so often occurred. |
My guess would be that Cole is defining as al Qaeda any group that is in direct(or almost direct) contact with Osama and the Boys. This definition would exclude groups that sympathize with al Qaeda, and "assist" them simply by disseminating pro-AQ propaganda or simply by refusing to turn them in to the authorities etc.
My own hunch:
AQ is an organtization much like the Ku Klux Klan. Basically, if someone wants start a chapter of the KKK, all he has to do is get some white robes, a few crosses, maybe a confederate flag and then announce to the world "I'm a Klansmen". And if he's white and protestant he's pretty much gauranteed to be accepted by the media and the general public as a bona fide Klansman. And of course various groups calling themselves "the Klan" probably make loose contact with each other on occasion, keep tabs on each other throught the internet.
Anyway, suppose a high-profile Klan outfit in Montana bombs a government building, killing thousands. The media would probably continue to refer the "the Klan" as if it were a single, centralized organization, thus giving the impression that the yahoos burning crosses at a barbecue in Alabama are all taking their marching orders from the guys in Montana. Furthermore, let's say that an ultraliberal Democrat is in the White House, and is looking for an easy way to explain the threat to the public. He probably wouldn't really bother trying to distinguish between the various groups calling themselves "the Klan". And you can bet that once the Klan mystique took hold with the public, every racist from Tallahassee to Tacoma would be putting on the bedsheets and burning a cross before going out to huck firebombs at the local synagogue. And the media would likely accept their claims to klan status at face value, or at least not question their right to call themselves the Klan.
Anwyay, that's my theory about what's happened with the varying accounts of AQ membership size. Some commentators count everyone who refers to himself as AQ as actually in AQ, and AQ proper is happy to go along with the exaggeration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's my feeling, too, and that's why I think taking out AQ proper is the way to go: what will remain will be the disorganized and inbred "klanners" or "neoNazis" who get together and celebrate bin Laden's birthday or whatever every year, maybe march in downtown "Mobile, Alabama" (there must be many "Mobiles" in the Mid East) from time to time, without having the ability to accomplish anything at all on the scale of AQ proper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think there is also an Al Qaida prime that would work on big attacks and would also help terror group wannabes get their terror franchise group up to speed or provide expertise on terror when there is an opportunity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I think there is also an Al Qaida prime that would work on big attacks and would also help terror group wannabes get their terror franchise group up to speed or provide expertise on terror when there is an opportunity. |
The problem is they would have to communicate. If they communicate electronically, they are likely to be discovered and killed. If they communicate by personal courriers, they are slow-moving and, for all intents and purposes, ineffective.
That is the problem I have with the grand organization hypothesis.
Here is another: think of Castro and Guevara in the 60s. Many guerrilla wannabes popped up all over Latin America and the Caribbean. So did a huge number of petty differences over who was in overall command. So did an ever larger number of even more petty differences emerge between and amongst the hundreds of leftist factions who thought that their party was the party directing the revolution. In the end, one of the reasons Che failed in Bolivia was that he was unable to resolve his differences with the Bolivian left and they simply abondoned him in the hills. (He told them, arrogantly, that he was Castro's designee in South America; they told him they were in charge of Bolivia, not him or Castro.)
I think that the grand organization hypothesis for AQ fails to account for possible local and regionally-based conflicts between the AQ wannabe groups.
This is totally conjecture on my part, based on nothing more than analogy and the total absence of direct evidence. I have just never seen AQ as something akin to the Cylon Empire or the Borg -- monolithic and unrelening. Overstates the effectiveness and intelligence of your typical rag-head guerrilla wannabe. Dangerous as a fighter, yes. Dangerous as a potential suicide attacker, yes. Dangerous as a strategic commander, organizer, or mastermind? Only a few, and we seem to know who they are. The rest are probably brainless, albeit fanatic, pawns.
So taking out AQ proper will likely change everything, I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
(CNN) -- An Arabic-language satellite TV network broadcast a videotape Monday of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the first glimpse of Osama bin Laden's top aide since a missile strike attempted to kill him more than two weeks ago in Pakistan.
Al-Zawahiri refers to the January 13 strike in the video, aired by Al-Jazeera. He speaks of the Pakistani village of Damadola and the 18 people who were killed in the attack.
"Their claim was to target this poor man and four of my brothers. The whole world discovered the lies as the Americans fight Islam and the Muslims," says al-Zawahiri, who is dressed in white in the video.
He adds, "I will meet my death when God wishes."
Al-Zawahiri directs a message to President Bush.
"My first message is to the butcher of Washington, Bush: You are not just defeated and lying about it, but you are, with God's help, a loser. You are bad luck to your people. You brought them disasters and catastrophes, and you will bring them even more disasters."
Al-Zawahiri also taunts the U.S. president, saying, "Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses enjoying their care with God's blessings and sharing with them their holy war against you until we defeat you, God willing."
CNN has not confirmed when the video was made. It comes 11 days after an audiotape surfaced from bin Laden. In that tape, bin Laden offered the United States a truce and said it is "only a matter of time" before America is attacked again.
CIA officials who analyzed the recording said they believe the voice on the audiotape is that of bin Laden.
In the video that aired Monday, Al-Zawahiri refers to the al Qaeda leader's offer.
"The lion of Islam, Sheik Osama bin Laden, offered you a decent exit from your dilemma, but your leaders, who are keen to accumulate wealth, insist on throwing you in battles and killing your souls in Iraq and Afghanistan and, God willing, on your own land," he says.
Al-Zawahiri also says, "To the American mother I say, if the defense ministry called you to tell you your son is coming back home in a coffin, remember Bush."
He adds, "To the British wife I say, if you got a call telling you your husband is coming back home with his body charred, remember [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair."
Bin Laden's top deputy hadn't been seen since a video aired by Al-Jazeera on January 6.
On January 20, al-Zawahiri recited poetry to jihadists on a 17-minute audiotape that appeared on the Internet.
The Egyptian exile has been indicted for his alleged role in the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/30/alzawahiri.tape/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| Overstates the effectiveness and intelligence of your typical rag-head guerrilla wannabe. |
Jesus, Gopher. Look, I realize your point here is to emphasize the marginality of the AQ foot soldiers, and I realize that you're probably just reverting to casual slang that isn't meant as an actual statement of your cultural attitudes. But ya know, "raghead" is a word that many people are going to associate with anti-Muslim bigots. And seeing as how you are someone who has DEFENDED Muslims on this board, why use language that's just gonna create confusion about what your position really is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My apologies...I do not harbor any racist-oriented negative feelings towards Muslims.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So I do not harbor any racist-oriented negative feelings towards Muslims. |
I didn't think you did. That's why I wanted to give you the chance to clarify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
